The Nation's Report Card: Reading 2009

Reading 2009

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS AT GRADES 4 AND 8

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education NCES 2010?458

Contents

1 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 7 Grade 4 24 Grade 8 42 Technical Notes 44 Appendix Tables

What is The Nation's Report CardTM?

The Nation's Report CardTM informs the public about the academic achievement of elementary and secondary students in the United States. Report cards communicate the findings of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a continuing and nationally representative measure of achievement in various subjects over time.

Since 1969, NAEP assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and other subjects. NAEP collects and reports information on student performance at the national and state levels, making the assessment an integral part of our nation's evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only academic achievement data and related background information are collected. The privacy of individual students and their families is protected.

NAEP is a congressionally authorized project of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible for carrying out the NAEP project. The National Assessment Governing Board oversees and sets policy for NAEP.

Photo Credits:

?Andersen Ross/Photodisc/Getty Images; ? Tetra Images/Corbis; ? Fancy Photography/Veer; ? Tetra Images/Getty Images; ? Blend Images/PunchStock; ? iStockphoto; ? Image Source/Jupiterimages; ? Alloy Photography/Veer; ? Alan Bailey/Rubberball/Jupiterimages; ? Alan Crawford/iStockphoto; ? Chris Scredon/iStockphoto; ? Jamie Grill/Tetra Images/Jupiterimages; ? Ralf Hettler/iStockphoto; ? Stockbyte/PunchStock; ? Tetra Images/PunchStock; ? Comstock/PunchStock; ? Image Source/Getty Images; ? Kablonk/SuperStock; ?Martin Child/Photodisc/Getty Images; ? Corbis/PunchStock; ? Jean-Paul Nacivet/Getty Images; ? FotografiaBasica/iStockphoto; ? Digital Vision/PunchStock; ?Christine Schneider/Brigitte Sporrer/Getty Images; ? Jon Le-Bon/iStockphoto; ? Corbis/PunchStock; ? Palto/iStockphoto; ? Martin Llad?/iStockphoto; ?Jose Luis Pelaez Inc./Blend Images/Getty Images; ?Somos/Veer/Getty Images; ? Wealan Pollard/OJO Images/Getty Images; ? Photodisc/PunchStock; ? Digital Vision/PunchStock; ? imagenavi/PunchStock; ?Jamie Grill/Photographer's Choice/Getty Images; ?Stretch Photography/Blend Images/Getty Images; "? Rachel Frank/Corbis; ? Valueline/PunchStock; ?Jose Luis Pelaez Inc/Blend Images/Getty Images; ? Carlos Davila/Photographer's Choice/Getty Images; ?Jamie Grill/Getty Images; ? Image Source Photography/Veery; ? David Sanger/Photodisk/Getty Images; ? Valueline/PunchStock; ? Tim Pannell/Corbis; ?Comstock Images/Getty Images; ? Purestock/Getty Images; ? Corbis; ?Image Source/Getty Images; ? Monashee Frantz/OJO Images/Getty Images; ? Ariel Skelly/Blend Images; ? Debenport Photo/iStockphoto; ? Comstock/PunchStock; ? Corbis Photography/Veer; ? Fancy Photography/Veer; ? fStop Photography/Veer

Executive Summary

Reading scores up since 2007 at grade 8 and unchanged at grade 4

Nationally representative samples of more than 178,000 fourth-graders and 160,000 eighth-graders participated in the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading. At each grade, students responded to questions designed to measure their knowledge of reading comprehension across two types of texts: literary and informational.

At grade 4, the average reading score in 2009 was unchanged from the score in 2007 but was higher than the scores in other earlier assessment years from 1992 to 2005 (figure A). About two-thirds (67 percent) of fourth-graders performed at or above the Basic level in 2009, and one-third (33 percent) performed at or above Proficient. Both percentages were unchanged from 2007 but were higher than previous assessment years. Eight percent of fourth-graders performed at the Advanced level, which was the same as in 2007 but higher than in 1992.

At grade 8, the average reading score in 2009 was one point higher than in 2007 and four points higher than in 1992 but was not consistently higher than in all the assessment years in between. Gains since 2007 were seen for lower- and middle-performing students at the 10th, 25th, and 50th percentiles, while scores for higher-performing students at the 75th and 90th percentiles showed no significant change. In 2009, about three-quarters (75 percent) of eighth-graders performed at or above the Basic level, and one-third (32 percent) performed at or above Proficient. Both percentages were higher in 2009 than in 2007 and 1992. Three percent of eighth-graders performed at the Advanced level in 2009, which was the same as the percentages in 2007 and 1992.

Figure A. Trend in fourth- and eighth-grade NAEP reading average scores

Scale score 500

270 260* 260*

260

250

264 263

264 263 262* 263* 264

240

230

220

217* 214*

210

217*

219* 218* 219* 221 221

213*

215*

200

0 '92 '94

'98 '00 '02 '03 '05 '07 '09

Accommodations not permitted

Accommodations permitted

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2009.

Grade 8 Grade 4

Year

READING 2009 1

Gains for some student groups but gaps persist

Trends in scores for student groups were generally similar to those for students overall. At grade 4, there were no significant changes in the average reading scores from 2007 to 2009 for student groups by race/ethnicity, gender, or type of school. Scores for most of the student groups were, however, higher in 2009 than in 1992.

At grade 8, average scores were higher in 2009 than in both 2007 and 1992 for most racial/ethnic groups, male students, and public school students. There were no significant changes compared to either 2007 or 1992 for female students or private school students, and no significant change for Asian/Pacific Islander students compared to 1992.

Even with gains for most student groups from 1992 to 2009 at both grades, and since 2007 at grade 8, score gaps have changed little. Compared to 2007, there have been no significant changes in the racial/ethnic gaps, gender gaps, or gaps by type of school at either grade. Compared to 1992, only the White ? Black gap at grade 4 and the female ? male gap at grade 8 have narrowed.

Characteristic Overall Race/ethnicity

White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander American Indian/ Alaska Native

GRADE 4

Since 1992 Since 2007

p

t

p

t

p

t

p

t

p

t

t

GRADE 8

Since 1992 Since 2007

p

p

p

p

p

p

p

p

t

p

p

Gender

Male

p

t

p

p

Female

p

t

t

t

Type of school

Public

p

t

p

p

Private

t

t

t

t

Gaps

White ? Black

Narrowed

t

t

t

White ? Hispanic

t

t

t

t

Female ? Male

t

t

Narrowed

t

Private ? Public

t

t

t

t

p Indicates the score was higher in 2009.

t Indicates no significant change in the score or the gap in 2009.

Reporting standards not met. Sample size insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.

Fourth-graders at the Proficient level were likely to be able to

? recognize the author's technique in developing a character, or

? use information from an article to provide and support an opinion.

2 THE NATION'S REPORT CARD

Scores increase in three states/jurisdictions at grade 4 and nine states at grade 8

WY UT

NM

IA MO

AK HI

1 Department of Defense Education Activity (overseas and domestic schools).

Compared to 2007, average reading scores for public school students in 2009

increased at both grades in Kentucky;

PA

CTRI

increased at grade 4 only in the District of Columbia and Rhode Island;

DC

KY

decreased at grade 4 only in Alaska,

DoDEA1

Iowa, and Wyoming;

AL FL

increased at grade 8 only in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Utah;

decreased at grade 4 but increased at grade 8 in New Mexico; and

showed no significant change at either grade in 38 states and jurisdictions.

Eighth-graders at the Proficient level were likely to be able to

? recognize an interpretation of the author's point in a persuasive essay, or

? interpret lines of a poem to explain the speaker's perspective.

READING 2009 3

Introduction

The 2009 NAEP reading assessment measured students' reading and comprehension skills by asking them to read selected grade-appropriate materials and answer questions based on what they had read. The results of the 2009 assessment are compared to those from previous years, showing how students' performance in reading has progressed over time.

The Reading Framework

The National Assessment Governing Board oversees the development of NAEP frameworks, which describe the specific knowledge and skills that should be assessed. Frameworks incorporate ideas and input from subject area experts, school administrators, policymakers, teachers, parents, and others. The Reading Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress describes the types of texts and questions that should be included in the assessment, as well as how the questions should be designed and scored. The development of the NAEP reading framework was guided by scientifically based reading research that defines reading as a dynamic cognitive process that allows students to

? understand written text;

? develop and interpret meaning; and

? use meaning as appropriate to the type of text, purpose, and situation.

The NAEP reading framework specifies the use of both literary and informational texts. Literary texts include three

The complete reading framework for 2009 is available at .

types at each grade: fiction, literary nonfiction, and poetry. Informational texts include three broad categories: exposition; argumentation and persuasive text; and procedural text and documents. The inclusion of distinct text types recognizes that students read different texts for different purposes.

The Reading Framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress replaces the framework first used for the 1992 reading assessment and then for subsequent reading assessments through 2007. Compared to the previous framework, the 2009 reading framework includes more emphasis on literary and informational texts, a redefinition of reading cognitive processes, a new systematic assessment of vocabulary knowledge, and the addition of poetry to grade 4. Results from special analyses determined the 2009 reading assessment results could be compared with those from earlier assessment years. These special analyses started in 2007 and included in-depth comparisons of the frameworks and the test questions, as well as a close examination of how the same students performed on the 2009 assessment and the earlier assessment. A summary of these special analyses and an overview of the differences between the previous framework and the 2009 framework are available on the Web at nationsreportcard/reading/trend_study.asp.

4 THE NATION'S REPORT CARD

The framework specifies three reading behaviors, or cognitive targets: locate/recall, integrate/interpret, and critique/ evaluate. The term cognitive target refers to the mental processes or kinds of thinking that underlie reading comprehension. Reading questions are developed to measure these cognitive targets for both literary and informational texts.

In addition, the framework calls for a systematic assessment of meaning vocabulary. Meaning vocabulary questions measure readers' knowledge of specific word meaning as used in the passage by the author and also measure passage comprehension.

Reading Cognitive Targets

Locate and Recall: When locating or recalling information from what they have read, students may identify explicitly stated main ideas or may focus on specific elements of a story.

Integrate and Interpret: When integrating and interpreting what they have read, students may make comparisons, explain character motivation, or examine relations of ideas across the text.

Critique and Evaluate: When critiquing or evaluating what they have read, students view the text critically by examining it from numerous perspectives or may evaluate overall text quality or the effectiveness of particular aspects of the text.

Reporting NAEP Results

The assessment results are based on nationally representative samples of 178,800 fourth-graders from 9,530 schools and 160,900 eighth-graders from 7,030 schools. Because the elementary schools participating in NAEP are given the option to include all of their fourth-grade students in the sample, and fourth-grade response rates are typically greater, the number of students assessed at grade 4 are often higher than the number of students at grade 8. Results for the nation reflect the performance of students attending public schools, private schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and Department of Defense schools. Results for states and jurisdictions reflect the performance of students in public schools only and are reported along with the results for public school students in the nation.

Scale scores

NAEP reading results for grades 4 and 8 are reported as average scores on a 0?500 scale. Because NAEP scales are developed independently for each subject, scores cannot be compared across subjects.

In addition to reporting an overall reading score for each grade, scale scores are reported at five percentiles to show trends in results for students performing at lower (10th and 25th percentiles), middle (50th percentile), and higher (75th and 90th percentiles) levels.

Achievement levels

Based on recommendations from policymakers, educators, and members of the general public, the Governing Board sets specific achievement levels for each subject area and grade. Achievement levels are performance standards showing what students should know and be able to do. NAEP results are reported as percentages of students performing at or above the Basic and Proficient levels and at the Advanced level.

As provided by law, NCES, upon review of congressionally mandated evaluations of NAEP, has determined that achievement levels are to be used on a trial basis and should be interpreted with caution. The NAEP achievement levels have been widely used by national and state officials.

NAEP Achievement Levels

Basic denotes partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.

Proficient represents solid academic performance. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter.

Advanced represents superior performance.

READING 2009 5

Interpreting the Results

Changes in performance over time

National results from the 2009 reading assessment are compared to eight previous assessment years at grade 4 and seven previous years at grade 8 (the 2000 reading assessment was administered at grade 4 only). State results for 2009 are compared to seven previous assessment years at grade 4 and five previous years at grade 8. Changes in students' performance over time are summarized by comparing the results in 2009 to 2007 and the first assessment year, except when pointing out consistent patterns across assessments.

NAEP reports results using widely accepted statistical standards; findings are reported based on a statistical significance level set at .05 with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons (see the Technical Notes for more information). The symbol (*) is used in tables and figures to indicate that an earlier year's score or percentage is significantly different from the 2009 results. Only those differences that are found to be statistically significant are discussed as higher or lower. The same standard applies when comparing the performance of one student group to another.

When scores significantly increase or decrease from one assessment year to the next, we are confident that student performance has changed. However, NAEP is not designed to identify the causes of these changes. Further, the many factors that may influence average student achievement scores also change over time. These include educational policies and practices, the quality of teachers, available resources, and the demographic characteristics of the student body.

Explore Additional Results

Not all of the data for results discussed in this report are presented in corresponding tables or figures. These and other results can be found in the NAEP Data Explorer at .

Accommodations and exclusions in NAEP

It is important to assess all selected students from the target population, including students with disabilities (SD) and English language learners (ELL). To accomplish this goal, many of the same testing accommodations allowed on state assessments (e.g., extra testing time or individual rather than group administration) are provided for SD and ELL students participating in NAEP. Accommodations were first made available for national and state samples in reading in 1998. Prior to 1998, no accommodations were provided in the NAEP reading assessment.

Because providing accommodations represented a change in testing conditions that could potentially affect the measurement of changes over time, split national and state samples of students were assessed in 1998--one sample permitted accommodations, and the other did not. Although the results for both samples are presented in the tables and figures, the comparisons to 1998 in the text are based on just the accommodated samples.

Even with the availability of accommodations, some students may still be excluded. Variations in exclusion and accommodation rates, due to differences in state policies and practices for identifying and including SD and ELL students, should be considered when comparing students' performance over time and across states. States and jurisdictions also vary in their proportion of special-needs students (especially ELL students). While the effect of exclusion is not precisely known, comparisons of performance results could be affected if exclusion rates are markedly different among states or vary widely over time. See appendix tables A-1 through A-8 for the percentages of students accommodated and excluded at the national and state levels. More information about NAEP's policy on the inclusion of special-needs students is available at .

6 THE NATION'S REPORT CARD

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download